Thinking further about OWL 1.1 support, I am wondering whether we should
try to introduce conventions that make it easier for tools to
distinguish OWL 1.1 files from OWL 1.0 files. This is for example
necessary to adjust user interfaces (menu entries etc) to support the
additional constructs.
This leads me to two questions.
1) Do we assume that the additional OWL 1.1 vocabulary (such as
owl:SelfRestriction ;) ) will be added to the OWL meta vocabulary [1]?
Then the usual owl: prefix would be used, giving OWL files a more
consistent look. However, I am not sure whether it is a recommended
practice to change a namespace that is now so widely deployed. An
alternative would be to use a different namespace for the new 1.1 URIs -
this could help distinguish OWL 1.1 documents as well, but would also
mean that something like an owl11: prefix would be required.
2) Since OWL 1.1 is evolving and URIs and semantics of its constructs
may change, would it make sense to annotate documents with something
like an owl:versionInfo = "OWL 1.1 (27-11-2006)" in the owl:Ontology?
Holger
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl